On 2003-10-01 14:17, "ext Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)" <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>
wrote:
>> Why define and manage the URI space outside the scope of the core Web
>> and SW machinery?
>
>
> Hi Patrick:
>
> I have to query the question you put above. IMO the "info" URI scheme fits
> full square within the core Web and SW machinery as articulated in the
> latest Web Architecture Draft:
>
> Architecture of the World Wide Web
> W3C Working Draft 27 June 2003
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/
If info URIs are not dereferencable, then they are not IMO
within the core of the Web or SW. Yes, both the Web and SW
provide for URIs for which there is no defined means to
obtain either representations or descriptions of the resource
denoted by such URIs, but the whole point of the Web is that
one can have access to resources (via their representations
and descriptions) given only the URIs that denote them.
> The domain of URI is more extensive than HTTP alone.
Did I ever assert otherwise?
> I would assert that the
> actual domain of URI is the Web.
You're free to assert that. I don't agree.
The scope of URIs is far, far broader than the Web or
the SW. The latter are as much concerned with resolution
of URIs to useful/meaningful content, as they are with
the denotation of resources. Yet there is no requirement
that any application which employs URIs simply for denotation
be concerned in the least about resolution.
For the record, I'm very happy to see work being done
towards minting URIs for these very important classification
systems -- however, I think that a huge amount of utility
is going to be missed by introducing a new URI scheme that
is not meaningful to present-day web servers.
You can achieve all of the goals detailed in the info URI
scheme RFC using domain name management and http: URIs. There
is simply no need to create a new URI scheme, particularly one
that, in a very practical sense, insulates the denoted resources
from the actual Web, since they will not be meaningful to HTTP
servers.
Regards,
Patrick